W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration [DRAFT]

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:55:34 -0600
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8C28E36.2A854%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-03-23 4:28 AM, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote:

Where not otherwise noted I've applied your suggestions to my local draft,
which I will put up at:

http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/rdf-mediatype.{txt, xml, html}

>> 2. application/rdf+xml Registration
>> 
>>    This is a media type registration as defined in Multipurpose Internet
>>    Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures [3]
>> 
>>       MIME media type name: text
> 
> Don't you mean "application" ?

Yes, of course. Copy-and-paste error on my part.

> >
> >    It is important to note that RDF language is used to transmit
> >    meaningful information, and thus has the same legal status as
> >    assertions, in say, English would.
>
> I strongly suggest dropping this last paragraph.  If there's anything
> likely to snarl up approval through IETF/IESG/IANA processes, I think this
> is it.  And it's not necessary to make this point for registering the
> content type.

OK, dropped. [Take note, DanC, TimBL.]

>>       Interoperability considerations:
> I don't recall the distinction between basic and abbreviated RDF syntax
> surviving into the latest syntax draft.  Further, I think it would be a
> mistake to propagate this preference, as the abbreviated syntax is, IMO, a
> bridge between "traditional" XML and RDF and makes it much easier to
> achieve deployment of RDF use in real-world applications.

Any suggestions for interop considerations, then? DaveB, any suggestions?
 
> The anti-marketeer in me thinks that "wide" should be dropped.

Dropped.
 
>>          Macintosh File Type Code(s): "TEXT"
> Do you mean "text"?  (I don't know, just checking.)

No, it's all-caps. This is the same file-type as XML and plain-text files,
but since Mac File Codes don't seem to be surviving into Mac OS X very well,
I don't think it's worth the bother to create a new one for RDF.
 
>>       Person & email address for further information:
[...]
>>          @@ some w3t person? danbri?
> I think a w3t contact might be appropriate here.

Volunteers? Anyone? Anyone?
 
>>       Intended usage: COMMON
>> 
>>       Author/Change controller:
>> 
>>          The RDF specification is a work product of the World Wide Web
>>          Consortium.  The W3C and the W3C RDF Core Working Group have
>>          change control over the specification.
> 
> Hmmm... for longevity, I'm wondering about the appropriateness of saying
> RDFcore WG here.  Just commenting.

Note that it says "the W3C _and_ the W3C RDF Core Working Group" (emph.
added).

>> 3. Fragment Identifiers
[...]
> s/contradicts/differs from/
> s/caution/attention/
> 
> (just a reprise of a previous debate ;-)

OK, I'll take that.
 
>>    [6]  <http://www.w3.org/2001/03mr/rdf_mt>
> 
> In due course, I think this reference should be expanded to include author,
> title, etc.

Added.
 
> And finally, I'd suggest we go for an initial Internet-draft publication of
> this as soon as the WG is happy with it.
> 
> Some where at the top of the document (e.g. just after the abstract) I'd
> suggest adding something like this:
> 
> Discussion of this document
[...]

Added.

-- 
      "Aaron Swartz"      |               Swhack Weblog
 <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |   <http://blogspace.com/swhack/weblog/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |      something different every day
Received on Saturday, 23 March 2002 20:55:37 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:21 EDT